An observation is not the same thing as an explanation.
Suppose a plane crashes, and the FAA sends a team to find out why. The team comes back and says, "The plane crashed". That's an observation, not an explanation.
Your description of how the sun rises (the earth rotating away from the sun, etc.) is an observation. It doesn't explain where the earth or sun came from, where the laws came from that govern orbits and rotations, etc.
You're a chemist. I'm sure you can describe all the elements, their properties, the effects of combining them in different quantities (H2O = water), and so forth. But that's not an explanation for how those elements exist or why they behave the way they do. No one can objectively explain the "whys" of those things.
There are two popular subjective explanations around here for those things. One is that God created those elements and the laws which govern their behavior. The other is that those elements just happen to exist and just happen to behave that way. Neither can be proven, disproven, tested, falsified, and so on. It isn't scientific and tangible to believe that things just happen to exist and work in certain ways. It's simply a subjective belief system, a "gut feeling", not anything qualitatively different from faith in God.
How do all the apparently bizarre meanderings that we believe occur at the sub-atomic level somehow produce the observable universe that we all see? Who can know for sure? Did God design and program it? Or does it just happen to exist and work that way? Can you scientifically demonstrate either one?
The sun apparently rising is an observation. The rotation of the earth is an explanation of the observation. We don't directly observe the earth rotate. There's no doubt the explanation begets other questions (why does the earth rotate?, etc); anyone who's talked to a bright four-year old is familiar with the infinite chain of questions and answers. And ultimately we get back to the really fundamental questions of where the universe came from, and so on. We can't yet answer those questions with confidence. But what we can answer are the immediate questions, and the immediate questions all have natural rather than supernatural explanations. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the harder and more distant questions will have natural explanations, and to exclude supernatural explanations, because the imminent problems, without exception, do not have supernatural explanations.
This argument, incidentally, is not mine; it was recently posted on Panda's Thumb by a Christian philosopher by the name of Bob O Connor, who feels that science can exclude ID on pragmatic grounds, and without making any contentious distinctions between science and non science. I found it a persuasive argument, because I worry about demarcation criteria.
You're a chemist. I'm sure you can describe all the elements, their properties, the effects of combining them in different quantities (H2O = water), and so forth. But that's not an explanation for how those elements exist or why they behave the way they do. No one can objectively explain the "whys" of those things.
Actually, I can give you a reasonably good explanation of why some elements exist and others don't; and I can give you excellent ones why they have the properties they have.